click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
/11, the guy you're referring to michael the f.b.i. finally said after someone died, we thought it was him. they had already had an investigation, they thought maybe he committed suicide because of the investigation. it was just a random professor who was a weirdo who followed sorority girls. was it really him? who knows. >> i think i read a pretty convincing -- too. you have the unabomber. there's a long history of domestic american terrorists who don't claim responsibility right away and do this stuff for years before they get caught. richard jewell, that was blamed on him and it was this other guy completely. cenk: that turned out to be erik rudolph. >> i haven't read enough, but i don't think we're going to get a claim of responsibility if we had not caught tim mcveigh. cenk: we never got clarity on the so-called second bomber at oklahoma city. >> eventually, you could interrogate tim mcveigh and get to the bottom of it. cenk: oh, right we killed him. >> everybody said there was a second bomber at oklahoma city and then the authorities were like we never caught that guy so no, there wa
with their financial affairs, the v.a. sends their name to the f.b.i. and they go on a nics list. and all of a sudden that takes away their second amendment right to own a gun. and it says that be in that lives in that house -- so it could be a spouse, it could be a child, it could be an adult child, for that fact -- also cannot own a firearm because the -- the -- the ruling says there can't be a firearm in th the -- in the -- in the residence. clearly, an appropriate determination if a veteran or any other american is found to be a harm to themselves or has a -- a mental disability, that we would all agree should disqualify them from gun ownership. now, let me say for the purposes of my colleagues and for the american people, this is not the standard that we currently apply at the veterans administration. we look at a veteran who's served his country and we say, you can't balance your checkbook so we're going to assign a fiduciary to you to balance your checkbook. you can't own a firearm. think about this. the fiduciary may be the spouse and all of a sudden that name goes to the nics list. why? beca
that the f.b.i. maintains, depends on the states sending information to the f.b.i. that they could use to screen out gun buyers. as a matter of fact, the shooter at the virginia tech had been adjudicated mentally ill by the state of virginia, but that information was never forwarded to the f.b.i. to be used on a background check. so he could therefore purchase weapons without a hit occurring on the nics background check system. after 2008, we passed legislation encourage the states, trying to incentivize them to send the information to the f.b.i. so that wouldn't happen again. and we know from the general accountability of course, the g.a.o., that the report of compliance with that law is dismal indeed. many states just simply haven't done it. i believe there are things we can do to further incentivize the states to send that information so that the background check system maintained by the f.b.i. actually works to preclude shooters like the virginia tech shooter from legally buying weapons because there would be a hit on the background check system, and he would be stopped from that s
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3